Nanoparticles loaded with bee venom kill HIV | Hacker News Reader

Nanoparticles loaded with bee venom kill HIV

news.wustl.edu

137 pointssomethingnew36 comments

This submissions is a press release from a university press office. There is a well established science news cycle

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174

in which a university press office will hype a preliminary research finding, and then credulous news organizations will amplify the hype. The incentive to do this is gaining external funding for research projects and looking good to prospective students or faculty candidates.

The preliminary finding mentioned in the press release submitted here will take a lot more clinical research before we can be sure that this is safe and effective for human use.

http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

That's been the usual experience here on Hacker News--gee-whiz press releases about breakthroughs submitted a few years ago end up not having any actual clinical safety or effectiveness as the preliminary findings are followed up by clinical trials. It's great to continue research on means of killing viruses or errant cells in human tissues, but it will be a long while, if ever, before this is a first-line defense against AIDS or any other health risk.

The article sort of breezes right by the sentence saying it can also work against tumor cells.

Also, at the end- "This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Grand Challenges Explorations"

The basic mechanics of this just read awesomely. Viruses generally "attack" cells by having protein sheathes with molecular "hooks" that latch onto cell wall receptors to disrupt the membrane and deliver the viral payload into the inner workings of the cell.

This technique uses a similar mechanism (molecular latching structures) that are scaled and aligned to fit into the viruses outer sheathes themselves, then disrupt the virus structure between host cells (DNA/RNA doesn't last long without protection). It's like fighting viruses with virus-like binding mechanisms, except the attack vector isn't self replicating.

Full article is available here: http://www.intmedpress.com/journals/avt/abstract.cfm?id=2346...

Abstract is free, full text is £17.50.

So this is not intended as a cure, and can not function that way.

Rather it's for use as a protective to prevent someone getting infected.

And it might have value as a treatment (but I'm guessing it will be too toxic inside blood).

Hood also sees potential for using nanoparticles with melittin as therapy for existing HIV infections, especially those that are drug-resistant. The nanoparticles could be injected intravenously and, in theory, would be able to clear HIV from the blood stream.

But the reservoir for HIV infection, the thing that makes clearing HIV particles from the blood insufficient to cure it, is the CD4 T-cell. So just clearing the blood of HIV will not be curative.

I don't have much biology experience, but if you can keep the blood stream clear of HIV, wouldn't that prevent new T-cells from getting infected, allowing the count of healthy T-cells to start growing as the body makes new ones?

Yes. That's the basis for HAART, the current mainstay of HIV treatment. It's a good treatment, but not a cure.

I'm not a biologist either; but, a thought: if the body is protected from greater infection while still keeping its infection levels constant, could the body then actually create successful antibodies for the existing HIV in them, and become cured over time?

It's a good thought, but if that were true, then HAART, which keeps viral load low, would lead to a cure.

Maybe it will in 20 years time...? I honestly have no idea. I'm speaking way outside of my knowledge realm and am more thinking aloud and asking questions than anything

Interesting thought, and I think we have the data to answer the question. HAART has been around since ~1995, so we actually have about 20 years of data to say that it does not cure HIV.

How bad would it be if you injected something that killed all CD4 T-cells? Like how long would it take until new ones formed and how vulnerable would you be until that happened?

That's in essence what HIV does. You'd give the patient a quicker onset of AIDS. Perhaps if you eradicate the rest of the HIV and keep the patient stable in some other way this could work... but I think this sort of scorched earth method isn't/wouldn't be as attractive as a targeted cure due to the period you'd have full blown AIDS.

I have no idea what clearing HIV from the blood stream would achieve? I assume it is not a cure, but might help reduce risk of transmission or something?

Edit: Question answered whilst I wrote it! <3

You are correct that lower viral loads reduce the risk of transmission to others. [1]

[1] = http://www.aidsmap.com/Viral-load-and-sexual-transmission-ri...

It might be able to arrest an infection's internal spread to other tissues and cells, but the virus would still live in existing infected cells. They'd have to find the therapeutic levels necessary to "cleanse the blood", and do clinical trials to look for side-effects (since they'll've introduced a solution of foreign bodies into the bloodstream). It might be that the levels to cleanse the blood are too high in most cases to be economically or therapeutically viable; or maybe not.

In any case, the approach is pretty neat.

This is pretty cool. I can't find Dr. Hood's paper on scholar.google.com yet so its hard to know exactly what is going on, but the mechanism sounds plausible.

Is this legit? I have no idea what to make of it.

There are tons of things that would kill HIV - strong acid, fire, lasers, but it doesn't mean it's good for the rest of the body.

True, but bee venom wouldn't be harmful to anyone now would it? :P

I am curious, would nano particles filled with salt or any other substance also do the same thing? I mean if you can get close enough to the virus, you could kill it anyway you like.

Nanoparticle safety still unknown: http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/nanotechnology-...

I know that is a generic article, but is it safe or not? Is it worth the chance to put it in lube as mentioned?

Condoms are already an effective preventative for sexual transmission of HIV. Will a person who's not using condoms be any more likely to use a "vaginal gel" ?

Yes, women who may not have control over condom use.

Condoms are effective, yes, but they do occasionally break. It seems to me like a second layer of defense is a pretty good idea.

Sure, if that person wants a pregnancy but doesn't want to transmit HIV -- a scenario mentioned in the article.

the HIV-AIDS hypothesis is a hoax instigated by a cancer fraud. See Duesberg.com for details.

Your handle and your comment are an oxymoron.

Buncha articles on Duesberg's bullcrap science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/cohen/cohen.xhtm...

Gee, that sounds familar... Felt the need to create a new account? http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=GeorgeJetson

Yeah and so does chlorine bleach.

These two things do not sound great together:

Nanoparticles carrying a toxin found in bee venom

developing a vaginal gel

I'm just sayin'...

HIV will just mutate so the particle can't bind to it anymore and stops working.

The real solution is better immune system design.

Doubt it. As I understand it, the outer envelope is a fairly important functional part of HIV - it needs to be very similar to normal human cells or the immune system will destroy the virus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com